Wilson v. City of Meridian Police Department et al
ORDER adopting 5 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations; dismissing Wilson's Motion for Report and Recommendation Against the Defendants and Co-Defendant(s); denying Wilson's 7 Motion to Disqualify Judges; denying Wilson 9;s 9 Motion to Disqualify Judges. The clerk is directed to mark this case "closed" for administrative purposes. The clerk is further directed to mail a physical copy of this Order to the plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 08/10/2011 (WB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
REV. DAVID R. WILSON
CAUSE NO. 4:11-CV-00080-CWR-FKB
CITY OF MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
CHIEF OF POLICE LEE SHELBY, WARRANT
OFFICER RICKEY HARRISON, SHERRY
BERRY, AND MARK MCDONALD
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
The above-styled cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation1 of
Magistrate Judge Ball and the related Motion for Report and Recommendation Against the
Defendants and Co-Defendant(s)2 of the plaintiff, which the Court construes to be an objection to
Judge Ball’s conclusions. Having reviewed both documents and considered the governing
authority, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and rejects the
plaintiff’s objections thereto.
David R. Wilson alleges that on February 3, 2011, he attempted to file a report with the
Meridian Police Department against his former wife and son for threatening him. According to
Wilson, he was arrested the next day and again in March 2011. Wilson also contends that he was
Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 5].
Motion for Report and Recommendation Against the Defendants and Co-Defendant(s)
[Docket No. 6] (styled by ECF as “Objection to Report and Recommendations”) (hereinafter
not read his Miranda rights.3
Ultimately, Wilson filed suit against the City of Meridian Police Department, the City of
Meridian, Chief of Police Lee Shelby, Warrant Officer Rickey Harrison, Meridian Mayor Sherry
Berry, and Mark McDonald of the City of Meridian. Wilson proceeds in forma pauperis4 and pro
se. His Complaint5 is anything but clear. Beneath the heading styled “The Legal Claims,” Wilson
complains of the following:
The class action F.R.C.P. 23 of the Defendant and Co-Defendant [illegible] are a
violation of federal law civil procedures 42 U.S.C. § Code Section 1983 under the
Mississippi federal law but not limited thereto:
A. The Defendant(s) and Co-Defendant has no legal right(s) whatsoever to:
B. The Plaintiff (Wilson) rights was violated under the 42 U.S.C. Code Section 1983
civil action for deprivation of rights for private action to be brought against the state
officials who wrongful deprive individual of their right(s).
C. The plaintiff (Wilson) has the rights to bring this class action F.R.C.P. 23 in the
federal court under the 28 U.S.C. § 1343(A)-(1) redness [sic] the deprivation under
color of any state law statute oridinance [sic] regulation custom or usage of any rights
priviledge [sic] or immunity secure [sic] by the Constitution of the United States or
by act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizen [sic] or all person within the
jurisdiction of the United States:
D. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(A) the district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
action arising under the Constitution law [sic] or treaties of the United States[.]6
JUDGE BALL’S RECOMMENDATIONS
From this muddled pleading, Judge Ball inferred the presentation of two claims: first, a
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Complaint [Docket No. 1].
Complaint at 6-8.
violation of constitutional rights stemming from the Police Department’s refusal to accept his
complaint on February 4, 2011, and second, a violation of constitutional rights for illegal arrest
on February 5, 2011, and on March 5, 2011.7
With regard to the first, Judge Ball recommended that the claim be dismissed as a matter
of law. “It is well settled that the decision whether to file criminal charges against an individual
lies within the prosecutor’s discretion, and private citizens do not have a constitutional right to
compel criminal prosecution.” Lewis v. Jindal, 368 Fed. Appx. 613, 614 (5th Cir. 2010).
Judge Ball also recommended dismissal of the second claim against the Meridian Police
Department. Because Wilson sued the City of Meridian, and because state law provides that the
City’s Police Department is a mere extension of the City,8 Judge Ball reasoned that the Police
Department should be dismissed as redundantly pled.9
The same recommendation emerged regarding Sherry Berry and Mark McDonald. Judge
Ball concluded that Wilson’s false-arrest claims against Berry and McDonald “are vague and
factually unsupported allegations”10 that should be dismissed. The Complaint appears to lack any
factual averments at all against Berry or McDonald, specific or general.
Finally, because the charges for which Wilson was arrested in February 2011 and March
2011 are still pending, Judge Ball recommended staying the action as to Chief of Police Lee
Report and Recommendation at 2.
See Bradley v. City of Jackson, 2008 WL 2381517, *2 (S.D. Miss. 2008) (Lee, J.);
Hammond v. Shepherd, 2006 WL 1329507, *1 (Wingate, C.J.).
See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989).
Report and Recommendation at 4.
Shelby and Warrant Officer Rickey Harrison.11 Judge Ball suggested that the action be marked
closed by the clerk of the court for administrative and statistical purposes.
Two days after Judge Ball tendered his recommendations, Wilson submitted an apparent
objection to Judge Ball’s conclusions. However, the objection makes no specific arguments
against Judge Ball’s specific recommendations and, instead, complains that the federal courts are
biased against him because of his race. For example, Wilson contends that by declining to issue
subpoenas in his cause, “this honorable court is practice [sic] a (Jim crow law) and prejudice and
showing bias against the plaintiff.”12 Wilson also predicts that “this honorable court is Jim Crow
law [sic] will dismiss his claims on the ground of prejudice and bias against the plaintiff
(Wilson) because most of them is white officals [sic] and one black officer, the State of
Mississippi federal system hate all black America just like J. Edgar Hoover watch this case be
Wilson goes on to recite, in very general terms, the authorities governing his case. For
example, he invokes the district court’s original jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, Section 1331 of
the United States Code,14 and he correctly observes that Title 42, Section 1983 of the United
States Code permits private actions for violations of constitutional rights by state officials acting
Wallace v. Kato, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1098 (2007); Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746
(5th Cir. 1995); Busick v. City of Madison, Miss., 90 Fed. Appx. 713, 714 (5th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff’s Objection at 4.
Plaintiff’s Objection at 4.
Plaintiff’s Objections at 5.
under color of state law.15 Wilson also cites Miranda v. Arizona16 for the proposition that “prior
to any question the person must be warned that he or she has a right to remain silent that any
statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the
presence of an attorney either retainer [sic] or appointed.”17
But Wilson does not identify with any degree of particularity an instance in which Judge
Ball erred as a matter of law. A party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendations must
be “specific” in order to be properly before a district judge.18 “A litigant who objects only in
vague or general terms to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, thereby preventing the district
court from focusing on specific issues for review, renders the initial reference to the magistrate
judge useless . . . . Such an objection does not constitute an ‘objection’ . . . .”19
Moreover, portions of any objection that amount to nothing more than personal attacks
against judicial officers, such as the magistrate judge, should be stricken,20 and this Court
declines to address them.
Finally, even if Wilson had registered specific objections to Judge Ball’s conclusions, this
Court still would not grant the requested relief because Judge Ball’s recommendations were not
Plaintiff’s Objections at 5-6.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 486 (1966).
Plaintiff’s Objections at 6.
Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Howard’s Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997).
Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Prods., Inc., 489 F. Supp. 1129, 1133 (N.D. Ohio 1980).
Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and
dismisses Wilson’s objections.
Moreover, because the substance of Wilson’s subsequent motions22 for the judges of this
district to recuse themselves closely reflect the substance of the objection herein overruled, those
motions likewise shall be considered denied.
SO ORDERED this Tenth day of August 2011.
/s/ Carlton W. Reeves
Hon. Carlton W. Reeves
United States District Court Judge
Because Judge Ball’s Recommendations concern matters that are dispositive, they are
reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Motion to Disquifiy [sic] the Judge’s [sic] [Docket No. 7]; Motion to Disquify [sic] the
Judge’s [Docket No. 9].
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?